Epstein Secrets

iffs. I ORDER GRANTING COUNTER-DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGM I NT THIS CAUSE came before the court on Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Fourth Amended Counterclaim filed herein by Counter- Plaintiff and the court having reviewed the file and

d applicable precedent, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Mr. EPSTEIN filed suit against Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. EDWARDS thereafter filed a Counterclaim against Mr. EPSTEIN. Mr. EPSTEIN later dismissed his Complaint withou

IVIL DIVISION -AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

mises, it is hereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Mr. EPSTEIN filed suit against Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. EDWARDS th

9CA040800XXXXMB of action for both abuse of process and malicious prosecution. 3. The court has reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks. Moves & Mitchell. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Bchevarria, McCalla. Ravmer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 Sold 380 (Fla. 2007) and Wolfe v. Foreman 38 Fla

-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Strike Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Supporting Memorandum of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PR

of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, Edwards raised two claims against Epstein: 1) abuse of process and 2) malicious prosecution. As to the malicious prosecution claim, Edwards alleged that the filing of the original complaint

) 27:22,24 30:21 imploded (1) 27:5 influence (1) 33:1 information (2) 8:1 13:24 3:24 5:11,13 7:21 17:20 29:21 31:5 33:12 38:9 39:20 40:9 Jeffrey (2) 1:4 6:11 jgoldberger@... 2:11 job (2) juncture (1) 5:24 jurisdiction (1) 28:17 jury (3) 19:5 inherent (1) 44:2 48:5 58:I9 61:13 17:

hat I 24 handled the state claims that involved Mr. Epstein 25 when I was in Division B. So I have a signif

eme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), the decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), and the

r-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersign

TIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to §768.79 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, h

COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOT

d grants summary judgment in favor of Epstein. EXIIILT "II" EFTA00805524 The Court thoroughly reviewed Levin, Midcllebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 3

L CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 2009CA0408003OOOCMB CIVIL DI

APPENDIX 1. Order Granting Fees and Costs of February 3, 2015 2. Epstein's Motion for Fees and Costs with attached pleadings dated June 2, 2014. EFTA00617978 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN A

ADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Counter-Defendant's, Jeffrey Epstein's, Motion for Fees and Costs filed on June 2, 2014. A hearing was held on December 8, 2014, at which 't counsel presented argument on the Motion. On

oceeding are absolutely privileged, so long as the actions have some relation to the underlying proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 SO. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). This position was reaffirmed in Echevarria. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal, quoting in large p

RECEIVED, 2/25/2015 3:10 PM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEF

as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the determination of whether the litigation privilege extends to the alleged tor

t of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT O

Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barren & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), the decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), and the